Tag: police state

Who is Winning the War of Information?

Recently, I made a stage presentation to a large crowd at the Calvary Chapel in Chattanooga, TN. The last time I was there was December, 2021, in the heat of the pandemic, and the crowd pressed me then for the best treatment protocols at home to survive acute COVID-19. I credited Pastor Frank Ramseur for being correct from the beginning on masking, lockdowns, early treatment, and vaccines. The community needs to know when their leaders made the right calls and had the courage to hold strong.

Now I was back in Chattanooga on May 17, 2024, but the conversation was much different. It was about what happened in the last four years and the “Art of War” in a time where we are looking for who to trust and what information to believe about health, geopolitics, and virtually every aspect of our lives.

The audience confirmed that not a single public health agency, medical school, or hospital system held public forums so people could ask questions and have their concerns addressed. I took over an hour to answer every question in the room from open microphones on both ends.

Keep reading

Mayor defends NYPD response after officers seen punching pro-Palestinian protesters

New York City Mayor Eric Adams defended the police department’s response to a pro-Palestinian street demonstration in Brooklyn over the weekend, calling video of officers repeatedly punching men lying prone on the ground an “isolated incident.”

“Look at that entire incident,” Adams said on the “Mornings on 1” program on the local cable news channel NY1. He complained that protesters who marched through Brooklyn’s Bay Ridge section on Saturday had blocked traffic, spit at officers and, in once instance, climbed on top of a moving city bus. “I take my hat off to the Police Department, how they handled an unruly group of people.”

“People want to take that one isolated incident that we’re investigating. They need to look at the totality of what happened in that bedroom community,” Adams added.

Footage shot by bystanders and independent journalists shows police officers intercepting a march in the street, shoving participants toward the sidewalk, and then grabbing some people in the crowd and dragging them down to the asphalt. Officers can be seen repeatedly punching at least three protesters, in separate incidents, as they lay pinned on the ground.

A video shot by videographer Peter Hambrecht and posted on X shows an officer in a white shirt punching a protester while holding his throat. Hambrecht said the arrests took place after police told the crowd to disperse.

“They were aware they might get arrested, but many times people use that to justify the beating which is obviously ridiculous,” Hambrecht told The Associated Press in a text message.

Independent journalist Katie Smith separately recorded video of an officer unleashing a volley of punches on a man pinned to the ground, hitting him at least five times with a closed fist.

Keep reading

Zoning Regulations Empower Control Freaks—and Bigots

Imagine you’re a member of a religious minority that’s on the receiving end of a lot of hate, and the local zoning board is giving you a hard time over plans to expand your house of worship. Is it regulators being their nitpicky selves? Are the neighbors weaponizing rules to squeeze out the cars and foot traffic that accompany any successful endeavor? Or could it be hostility directed at your faith? Zoning has been used and abused in all these ways, which underlines the need for reform.

Bigotry Through Red Tape

“A proposal to dramatically expand Harvard Chabad’s Banks Street headquarters failed to win approval from the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeals during a contentious Thursday public hearing,” The Harvard Crimson reported last week. “The rejection leaves the Jewish student organization to revise and clarify the proposal before a follow-up hearing in June.”

Harvard Chabad’s Rabbi Hirschy Zarchi told me that opposition to the group’s expansion has featured many “inappropriate comments” including suggestions that the group is “too visibly Jewish.” Other criticism, he says, is more “classic NIMBY,” though it sometimes touches on the nature of Chabad in the former of objections to the presence of security often required by Jewish organizations after October 7.

Zarchi and company aren’t alone. Just last month, the U.S. Department of Justice warned officials in Hawaii about their efforts to block operation of a Chabad house. The plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Hawaii County “have established a likelihood of success on the merits” of their claims of bias, according to Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general of the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Part of the problem in Cambridge could be general opposition to houses of worship, which draw crowds but don’t generate much money for revenue-hungry governments.

“Many land-use disputes aren’t about explicit bigotry,” Emma Green wrote in 2017 for The Atlantic. “They arise from concerns about noise, lost property taxes, and Sunday-morning traffic jams. The effect is largely the same, and can be just as devastating as outright hatred: A religious community is dragged into a lengthy, and costly, dispute with a city or town.”

Use of zoning laws to block churches, synagogues, and mosques has been such a problem that it inspired the passage of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act in 2000. “Zoning codes and landmarking laws may illegally exclude religious assemblies in places where they permit theaters, meeting halls, and other places where large groups of people assemble for secular purposes,” notes the Department of Justice in a commentary on the law. That the effort wasn’t fully successful is apparent from the fact that the Justice Department is still cautioning jurisdictions over land use regulations that, as in Hawaii, explicitly discriminate against religious groups.

Keep reading

Canadians could be prosecuted for alleged hate crimes BEFORE the date Bill C-63 becomes active or undefined “hate” crimes MIGHT be committed

I repost an email from Terry H in full – please forward to fellow Canadians and others that are facing the mass censorship of social media that is intended to suppress any contrary views to those of the UN, WHO and WEF

The recent buzz around Bill C-63, labeled the “Online Harms Act,” might have you thinking twice before posting on social media. – Why?

Because it poses a risk of imposing fines up to $70,000 for what could potentially be labelled as “HATE”, which is defined in very general and broad terms by a “Ministry of Truth”.

And to make matters worse, the supposedly “non-partisan and apolitical” Governor General of Canada, Mary Simon, is endorsing the Bill and the death of Canadians’ Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.

Governor General Simon had a meeting on April 15 in Rideau Hall with supporters of the Bill C-63, which included the (In)Justice Minister Arif Virani, who introduced the bill into Parliament.

Further supporters of the bill in attendance included:

·  Former mainstream media journalists Lisa LaFlamme and Emilie Nicolas,
·  Bailout mainstream journalist/TikToker Rachel Gilmore,
·  Government-funded transactivist and former Hershey “International Women’s Day” chocolat bar wrapper model “Fae Johnstone”,
·  And the authoritarian unelected health cheif bureaucrat, Theresa Tam.

Interestingly enough, no invites sent opposition party members or anyone who opposes the bill…

Keep reading

The Pathetic Want of Rule, Authority, and Collectivism, Has Led to the Tortured Enslavement of Man

“Authority allows two roles: the torturer and the tortured. Twists people into joyless mannequins that fear and hate, while culture plunges into the abyss.”

~ Alan Moore, V for Vendetta

Every aspect of government, every moronic vote for any master, every atrocity, every war, every form of censorship, every genocide, every economic disaster, and every form of totalitarianism, is fully dependent on the lack of self-ownership by any and all in the collective herd of those who voluntarily allow themselves to be enslaved by any ruling State. Any acceptance of rule, any rule, is the antithesis of freedom. The very idea of rule runs counter to any sanity, and no one who accepts rule without active and forceful dissent, deserves his lot in life as a slave.

This is the actual problem, this is the bottom line, this is the big picture. All else is but a consequence of the allowance of rule. Concentrating on hate, every singular event, every form of tyranny, every isolated evil perpetrated or allowed by the State, every psychotic ‘election,’ and every pitiful falsely-claimed victim; all while ignoring, chastising, negating, and abandoning the individual and independent self-rule, is cause for great alarm. When this attitude is broad-based and taken up by the masses, which happened a long time ago, collective ignorance and universal stupidity becomes the norm. This causes division and constant blame where it should not exist, for the real problem lies with the fact that the people individually and collectively have accepted authoritative governance as their god.

This of course seems to this doltish society of fools, as the easy way out; so as not to have to be responsible for themselves or their own subsistence. What a society like this breeds is exactly what we have today in this country, and most of the rest of the world, especially in the West; a pathetic, weak, and controlled proletariat class, dependent on their chosen master’s whims, restrictions, and regulations. They wallow in complacency, while choosing to exist as submissive addicts of rule. The incessant nature of this total societal  laziness, irresponsibility, and cowardice, is cloaked in ignorance, fear, and hate for one another; all solicited by the governing slime, and all unwarranted.

The end product that arises from this societal mindset, especially in the U.S., is eye-opening to say the least. Most of the people here actually believe they are free and live in a free country. They are fat and happy, regardless of the tyranny they face, and able to eat all the poison that fast food chains and processed manufacturing can dish out; soon (already are)  to be in the form of genetically-modified organisms, fake meat, worms and bugs, chemicals, metals, and unknown biological and technological nano-particulate matter. This is happening while the vast majority have no concept of their fate due to their blind obedience to the State, and its agendas.

Keep reading

Summer Olympics in Paris to construct digital tracking system, requiring QR Codes to attend certain events

The 2024 Summer Olympics open July 26 in Paris, France, and it will be different from any other Olympic Games.

Spectators traveling to the City of Love will have their movement tracked and restricted through the use of digital QR codes.

The city’s Olympics website states:

“The Paris 2024 Olympic Games are fast approaching, and with them come their share of security measures. These include the introduction of restricted areas accessible only on presentation of a QR code.”

The website goes on to explain that:

“The JO 2024 QR code is a unique QR code that gives access to certain restricted areas set up in Paris during the Olympic Games. These areas include competition venues, Olympic villages and fan zones.

“The QR code contains information about the holder, such as surname, first name and ticket number. This information is used to verify the person’s identity and ensure that they are authorized to enter the restricted area.”

It further explains:

“The QR code will be required to enter the security perimeters set up around the Olympic venues. These perimeters will be delimited by barriers and checkpoints. The exact zones concerned will be announced by the authorities at a later date.”

This is the same system that’s being established on a mostly voluntary basis at large-venue events here in the United States, including several Major League baseball stadiums and concert halls. U.S. airports are also implementing this system. But this is the first major event I can recall, post-Covid, where entry will be based on a mandatory QR code and certain events will be placed behind digital gates.

This is a big deal. If it’s successful, you will see other venues also mandating what amounts to a digital ID system, locking non-digitized humans out of various places. Without your digital ID, you won’t be allowed through the gates.

Keep reading

Biden’s Spin on Marijuana’s Rescheduling Exaggerates Its Practical Impact

President Joe Biden describes the Drug Enforcement Administration’s proposal to reclassify marijuana under federal law as “monumental.” How so? “It’s an important move toward reversing longstanding inequities,” Biden claims in a video posted on Thursday. “Today’s announcement builds on the work we’ve already done to pardon a record number of federal offenses for simple possession of marijuana, and it adds to the action we’ve taken to lift barriers to housing, employment, small business loans, and so much more for tens of thousands of Americans.”

Even allowing for 60 days of public comment and review of a final rule by Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, marijuana’s rescheduling could be finalized before the presidential election. And even if it does not take effect before then, Biden is hoping the move will help motivate younger voters whose turnout could be crucial to his re-election. But he also had better hope those voters are not paying much attention to the practical consequences of rescheduling marijuana, which are much more modest than his rhetoric implies.

“Look, folks,” Biden says in the video, “no one should be in jail merely for using or possessing marijuana. Period. Far too many lives have been upended because of [our] failed approach to marijuana, and I’m committed to righting those wrongs.” Yet rescheduling marijuana will not decriminalize marijuana use, even for medical purposes. It will not legalize state-licensed marijuana businesses or resolve the growing conflict between federal prohibition and state laws that authorize those businesses. It will not stop the war on weed or do much to ameliorate the injustice it inflicts.

In accordance with a recommendation that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made last August, the DEA plans to move marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, a list of completely prohibited drugs, to Schedule III, which includes prescription medications such as ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids. Schedule I supposedly is reserved for drugs with a high abuse potential and no accepted medical applications that cannot be used safely even under a doctor’s supervision.

When Biden directed HHS to review marijuana’s legal status in October 2022, he noted that “we classify marijuana at the same level as heroin” and treat it as “more serious than fentanyl,” which “makes no sense.” On Thursday, he likewise noted that “marijuana has a higher-level classification than fentanyl and methamphetamine—the two drugs driving America’s overdose epidemic.”

Biden is right that marijuana’s current classification makes no sense, as critics have been pointing out for half a century and as HHS belatedly acknowledged in explaining the rationale for rescheduling. HHS found “credible scientific support” for marijuana’s use in the treatment of pain, nausea and vomiting, and “anorexia related to a medical condition.” It also noted that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse,” such as heroin (Schedule I), cocaine (Schedule II), benzodiazepines like Valium and Xanax (Schedule IV), and alcohol (unscheduled).

Keep reading

State Intervention and Anarchy

In Against the State, Lew Rockwell emphasizes that the assault on our liberties from the state is not merely “the product of temporary malfunctions. To the contrary, the state is by nature evil.” Rockwell shows that the state is founded on coercion and maintains its power by use of force.

In recent years, following the rise of environmentalism, public health “safetyism,” and the war against “hate,” state interventions have encroached even further into private and family life. Against the State shows that these interventions are not only coercive but also antihuman in prioritizing their goals above human life. A striking example of this was the lockdown policy of closing schools and playgrounds, on the basis that children are resilient and so there is no reason why the state should not keep them under house arrest for several months of their lives.

Another example is the prioritization of the needs of the socialized medicine behemoths such as the United Kingdom’s cultish National Health Service: the British journalist Sherelle Jacobs comments that “with NHS spending now more than that for education, transport, the Home Office and defense put together, Britain is arguably now merely a health service with a state attached.” Similarly, in Canada, private healthcare is banned, and citizens struggling to cope with life are offered state assistance in killing themselves.

With the state on the rampage enforcing the “public good,” its defenders see no need to limit the power conferred on it to achieve that goal—after all, if the goal is noble and worthy, why should there be limits on the power to achieve it? In this way, the ideal of limited government is extinguished.

Rockwell also highlights the fact that the state creates the very problems for which it is then said we need state power to resolve:

The state is not a neutral observer. It will pass environmental legislation. It will regulate relations between races and sexes. It will put down this religion in order to raise that one up. In each case, the intervention only exacerbates conflicts, which in turn creates the impression that there really is an intractable conflict at work.

An example of state interventions fueling conflict is the protected status given to different groups based on their identity, notably race, sex, religion, and gender.

Keep reading

The Trouble With World Government

A court in Australia has told the government’s own eSafety Commission that Elon Musk is correct: One country cannot impose censorship on the world. The company X, formerly known as Twitter, must obey national law but not global law.

Mr. Musk seems to have won a very similar fight in Brazil, where a judge demanded not just a national but global takedown. X refused and won. For now.

This really does raise a serious issue: How big of a threat are these global government institutions?

Dreamy, dopey, and often scary intellectuals have dreamed of global government for centuries. If you are rich enough and smart enough, the idea seems to be the perennial temptation. The list of advocates includes people who otherwise have made notable contributions: Albert Einstein, Isaac Asimov, Walter Cronkite, Buckminster Fuller, and many others.

Often the dream comes alive following huge upheavals such as war and depression. Or a pandemic period such as the one we’ve just gone through. The use of “disinformation” as a cross-border test case of global government power is designed to deploy a new strategy of governance in general, one that disregards national control in favor of global control.

That has always been the dream. In history, for example, following the Great War, we saw the creation of the League of Nations, which was a forerunner to the United Nations, at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson. Both were seen by the intellectual class as necessary building blocks for what they really wanted, which was a binding world state.

This is not a conspiracy theory. It’s what they said and what they wanted.

In 1919, H.G. Wells, inspired by the League, became so excited about the idea that he wrote a sweeping reinterpretation of world history that extended from the ninth century B.C. until that present moment. It was called “The Outline of History.”

The goal of the book was to turn on its head the popular Whig theory from the previous century, which saw history as the story of ever more freedom for individuals and away from powerful states. Wells told a story of tribes turning to nations and then to regions, with ever less power to the people and ever more to dictators and planners. His purpose was to chronicle and defend exactly this.

It was a huge bestseller at a time when the appetite for books was voracious because they were becoming affordable and there was a burning passion in the population for universal education. The thesis of his book, however valuable in some historical respects, was genuinely bizarre. He imagined a future world state ruled by a tiny elite of the smartest people who would plan all economies, information flows, migration patterns, and governance systems while crushing national ambitions, free enterprise, traditions, and constitutions.

Keep reading

A call for people worldwide to stand with Japan against WHO’s public health dictatorship

Last month, tens of thousands of citizens across Japan came together in a series of pandemic rallies. The protests centred on the widespread opposition to the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) Pandemic Treaty, with escalating concerns over “infectious disease” and “public health” becoming potent tools for an unprecedented push towards what is perceived by many as a totalitarian surveillance society.

Eminent speakers, including Professor Masayasu Inoue and modern history researcher Chikatsu Hayashi, provided compelling pre-demonstration speeches that laid bare the concerning dynamics between global health authorities and pharmaceutical agendas.

A month later, on Monday, a press conference was broadcast on Twitter.  Below is a video clip from the press conference where Hayashi launched ‘The National Movement to Save Lives from the WHO’, explained the motivations behind the Movement and announced a protest that will take place on the first day of WHO’s 77th World Health Assembly.

Keep reading